Talk:Paul G. Kirk/Archive 1

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Early life and Education

Kirk is one of the five children of Massachusetts Supreme Court Judge Paul Gratton Kirk, Sr. and Josephine Kirk née O'Connell. He attended The Roxbury Latin School in West Roxbury, Massachusetts, and graduated from St. Sebastian's School, class of 1956. He graduated from Harvard College in 1960, and Harvard Law School in 1964. In 1974, he married Gail Loudermilk.

Business and civic involvement

Kirk is affiliated with Sullivan & Worcester LLP of Boston, Massachusetts, a law firm of which he was a partner from 1977-1990. He is also Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kirk & Associates, Inc., a business advisory and consulting firm located in Boston.

Kirk is a member of the Board of Directors of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Rayonier, Incorporated and Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. He served on the Board of Directors of ITT Corporation from 1989 - 1997 and Bradley Real Estate, Inc. from 1991 - 2000.

Kirk is a Trustee of Stonehill College. He is past Chairman of the Harvard Board of Overseers Nominating Committee and presently serves as Chairman of the Harvard Overseers Committee to Visit the Department of Athletics.

From 1992 to 2001 Kirk served as Chairman of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

Personal life

Kirk is married and has six nieces (Paula Cleary, Kate Cleary, Mikaela McDermott, Beth McDermott, Katharine Kirk, and Molly Kirk) as well as two nephews (Bill Cleary III and Andrew McDermott).

Source of career info

• The source of the career info is apparently the JFK Kennedy Library, where he's chair of the board. I revised it, as much as a list of positions and terms in office can be revised and not infringe on the source. The personal information needs sourcing and has not been added back to the article at this time. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Paul G. Kirk, Jr., Chairman". John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. (undated). Retrieved September 24, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Lead in

A lot of that lead paragraph info is so irrelevant. I'm deleting it and moving it to where appropriate. Alex (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone has changed this article to where it can't be linked to directly from outside Wikipedia. Please resolve. ````s2grand```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by S2grand (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

interim

I don't believe US Senate uses the term interm to discribe senators. I understand he will only serve until the election, but I don't believe it is correct to say interim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Roland Burris' appointment date IS his "Assumed Office" date; why the double standard?

There was a fair amount of dispute over what date consitituted the "Assumed office" date for Roland Burris' term as U.S. Senator at the time he was appointed, since the appointment wasn't certified for several weeks, and he wasn't sworn in until mid-January 2009. The ultimate date that was utilized was December 31, 2008, the day in which he was appointed by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. His appointment was not certified on that date, and he was not sworn in on that date, but that was the date used as the start date for his service as a U.S. Senator. That said, I recommend Paul Kirk's "Assumed office" date be amended to September 24, 2009 - the moment that he was appointed by Gov. Patrick, he begins receiving compensation for the job. Though he will not be sworn in until tomorrow, TODAY is the day in which he has become a U.S. Senator, if the standards that were applied to Senator Burris are going to be consistently applied here. Please update Senator Kirk's "Assumed office" date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.204.68 (talk • contribs)

WP:RS/WP:V secondary sourced info for these claims? Cirt (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree: George LeMieux was announced to be the senator-designate on August 28, but did not "assume office" until the 9th of September. That it part of the official senate record. Hence the term "United States Senator-Designate". Kirsten Gillibrand was announced on the 23 of August by "assumed office" on the 26th. (Despite having taken the oath on the 27th.) What that means to me is that either some dates are wrong in her wiki, or the "assumed office" date is when the secretary of the senate accepts the paperwork for appointment and the seating is allowed. If Roland Burris' wiki is different, maybe we need to look at changing his. Alex (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Roland Burris' wiki IS different - it lists the date that he assumed office as December 31, 2008 - the date he was appointed by Rod Blagojevich. On that date, his appointment had not yet been certified by the IL Sec. of State, nor had he been sworn into office. But after much back and forth, the final decision was made by Wikipedia editors that December 31, 2008 would be listed as the date that he assumed office, as that was the date he bagen receiving a paycheck as a U.S. Senator. His seniority date is in mid-January 2009, because that is when he assumed office, but he began receiving compensation for the office on the date he was appointed, per Senate rules. That his appointment was contentious for several weeks and it wasn't clear whether or not he would be able to take his seat did not negate the "Assumed office" date listed on his Wikipedia article.

As such, I recommend either amending the "Assumed office" date for Roland Burris to reflect the date in which he was sworn in, or amending the "Assumed office" date for Paul Kirk for the day that he was appointed. This website cannot arbitrarily change the rules for different people. Either an appointed U.S. Senator "Assumes office" on the date they were appointed, or they "Assume office" on the date they are sworn in - and the same standard needs to be applied to ALL U.S. Senate appointments. Can't be both, or Wikipedia's credibility suffers.

Go review the discussion page for Roland Burris for more information. Wikipedia editors have decided that Roland Burris' "Assumed office" date is December 31, 2008, and won't allow any changes to be made to it.

I have edited Roland Burris' wiki to reflect that he "Assumed office" on January 15, 2009, the date in which he took the oath of office. I am fairly confident Wikipedia's editors will revert his "Assumed office" date to December 31, 2008, but I find it highly hypocritical that different sets of standards are being applied to different appointed U.S. Senators on this website. Get your standards straight, and get them uniform. Either an appointed U.S. Senator "Assumes office" on the very date in which they are appointed by their state's governor, or they "Assume office" on the date in which they are sworn in. Use one standard or the other, frankly I don't care. I'll leave it to Wikipedia editors to determine the factually accurate standard. But please don't revert Burris' "Assumed office" date to his appointment date unless you plan on updating the "Assumed office" date to reflect the appointment dates for Senators Gillibrand, Kaufman, Bennet, Lemieux, and Kirk as well.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.189.159 (talk • contribs) 21:41, September 24, 2009

With two specific exceptions I can find and one general one, an appointed senator's date of appointment is used as the date the senator's service began. The two specific ones are Burris and LeMieux. The general one is, like Kirsten Gillibrand, where the appointee was not qualified on the date of appointment. Burris is unique because of the circustances that surrounded his appointment and seating, but under the law his term began on December 31. That law is 2 USC sec. 36. Some try to argue that the terms only apply to salary, but the Senate disagrees. An official Senate document produced by the Secretary of the Senate and Parliamentarian of the Senate states, "Statutes now supplement the 20th Amendment in determining the beginning and ending of the term of Senators appointed or elected to fill unexpired terms in the cases of death, resignation, or defeat of an appointed Senator seeking election to fill an unexpired term." The document then introduces 2 USC sec. 36, and discusses several times the Senate, based on that statute, contradicted the certificates of appointment and election of new senators that set effective dates that were different than what section 36 provides. -Rrius (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Roland Burris did not become a Senator until the U.S. Senate accepted him and he actually took the oath of office. This is the case with all senators: their election and process of becoming a Senator-designate, or Senator-elect is subject to review and challenge by members the Senate; they are not a Senator until they are accepted and take the oath of office. From article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That is OR. The ability of the Senate to refuse to seat someone for anything other than failing to meet the constitutional requirements of citizenship, age, and residency highly suspect do to Supreme Court precedent. This was all discussed during the Burris controversy. In any event, it is simply not true that taking the oath is when an appointee's term begins. I have pointed to proof above which demonstrates not just where that comes from, but also that the Senate and the historical office follow that. Burris is a unique case, and you cannot rely on it as an explanation of how the process works. In addition to current appointees Kaufman, Bennet, and Gillibrand, see appointees whose terms have concluded, such as Bob Krueger (K000333), Lincoln Chafee (C001040), Harlan Mathews (M000236), and Benjamin A. Smith II (S000517). Put the code in the parenthesis at the end of this url - http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index= - to see the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress entry for each and what it says their terms were. -Rrius (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Not original research. You can see how the Senate itself documents the process, and Burris exemplifies the process in action. It does appear that unexceptional appointments consider the (yet another term) "date of service" to be the effective date of appointment in combination with adequate credentials, even if the oath of office is rendered the on a later date. Gillibrand is an example. Yet for LeMeiux (FL), his date of service is the following day, after the effective appointment date, as Martinez was in office through September 9th, hence LeMeiux's start date of September 10, 2009. It appears, for elected senators, the service start is the date of oath of office. Franken on that point. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Senators of the United States 1789-2009: A chronological list of senators from the First Congress to the 111th Congress" (PDF). Senate Historical Office. September 2009. Retrieved September 23, 2009.

From footnotes to the above, on page 82.

• 6. Burris was appointed to fill a vacancy on December 31, 2008. His credentials were found in order on January 12, 2009, and he took his seat on January 15, 2009.
• 7. Gillibrand was appointed on January 23, 2009. She resigned her House seat on January 26, and was sworn into office on January 27, 2009.
• 8. The contested election case between Al Franken and Norm Coleman was resolved by Minnesota’s Supreme Court on June 30, 2009. Franken was sworn into office on July 7, 2009. The Senate seat had remained vacant from Jan. 3 until July 6.

and for George S. LeMieux (R-FL): Date Appointed: September 9, 2009, and began service on September 10, 2009.

"Appointed Senators". United States Senate. Retrieved September 23, 2009.

From the table in the first above source, listing the start of Initial Senate service, and rank among all Senators who have ever served in the Senate
January 3

Udall, Mark (D-CO) 1898

Udall, Tom (D-NM) 1899

Johanns, Mike (R-NE) 1900

Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) 1901

Warner, Mark (D-VA) 1902

Risch, Jim (R-ID) 1903

Hagan, Kay (D-NC) 1904

Merkley, Jeff (D-OR) 1905

Begich, Mark (D-AK) 1906

January 12 Burris, Roland (D-IL) 1907
January 15 Kaufman, Edward (D-DE) 1908
January 21 Bennet, Michael (D-CO) 1909
January 26 Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) 1910
July 7 Franken, Al (D-MN) 1911
September 10 George LeMieux (R-FL) 1912

---

I think I can shed some light on the LeMieux issue. On the September 10, when the Biographical Directory sketch went live, it said he was appointed on September 10. I think what happened is that they updated the Chronological List based on that. Then, I pointed out that he was actually appointed on the 9th, but they didn't change the list. I think the way the sketch is worded now has to do with how it was worded before the change. In any event, I have an inquiry in with the Historical Office to see what's up.

For elected senators, the rules are different than for appointed ones. The terms of senators appointed for a full term begin on January 3 so long as their credentials are presented on time. For senators such as Franken (who couldn't help being late) and Rockefeller in his first term (who chose to be late), their term begins when they show up with their credentials. For senators elected to fill a vacancy, when the term begins depends on whether the Senate has adjourned sine die. If it has not adjourned, the term begins with taking the oath. If it has adjourned, the term begins the day after the election. If the Senate adjourns sine die after the election, but before the new senator comes to take the oath, the term begins the day after the Senate adjourns sine die.

To the point about Burris, his situation in no way exemplifies the process. When Gov. Blagojevich appointed Burris on December 30, 2008, the Senate Democratic Caucus sent a letter to Blago saying they would not accept an appointment from him. The Senate Democratic leadership continued over the following days to insist that they wanted to either refuse to seat him or send his credentials to the Rules Committee for review, and let them sit there until Blagojevich was removed so that the new governor could make a new appointment. Four things turned them around. The first was pressure from prominent African Americans who complained that they were excluding the man who would be the only African American in the Senate. Second, they figured out that slow walking the credentials through the Rules Committee would matter because Quinn wouldn't be entitled to revoke the appointment. Third, they figured out that they would probably lose the court battle that would follow a vote to not seat Burris. Finally, Barack Obama told them to make it go away.

The fig leaf of a technicality the leadership used for rejecting Burris's credentials was that the Illinois Secretary of State had refused to countersign the Certificate of Appointment. They relied on 2 USC sec. 1b, which says that the secretary of state must countersign a certificate of election, and upon the suggested forms the Senate sends out whenever there will likely be an appointment, which has a line for the Secretary of State's countersignature. Dick Durbin went so far as to say the Senate had never accepted credentials without that, which was untrue. The Senate has seated people on the basis of a phone call saying credentials were on the way. In any event, Reid and Durbin met with Burris and told him he needed to do two things to get in: testify satisfactorally before the Blagojevich Impeachment Committee, and get the secretary of state's signature. Burris testified, but still needed the signature, so he sued to have Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White ordered to sign.

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected the leadership's argument that federal law and Senate rules require the secretary of state's countersignature when Burris put it forward as a reason the secretary of state should be required to countersign. The Court said there is nothing in the statutes, the rules, or the form (which, again, is only recommended) that says the Secretary of State needs to countersign. The Court did suggest getting a certified copy of the Certificate of Appointment, which would carry a signature of the secretary of state saying the document is true and correct. The exasperated leaders, under pressure from Obama, decided the credentials were now acceptable.

The technical reason put forward for keeping him out, the lack of a countersignature, was a pretext, and a weak one at that. The only purpose of the countersignature is to say that the governor actually signed it. Everyone knew Blagojevich signed the appointment because he said so publicly and signed an affidavit. The reason for allowing him in was equally a pretext and almost as weak. If the Senate truly required the Certificate of Appointment be "countersigned by the secretary of state of the State" as provided by section 1b, a stamped signature saying the document to which it is affixed is a true and correct copy does not fit the bill.

The whole episode was a farce and an embarrassment for the Senate (and the state of Illinois), but it is in no way meaningful precedent. -Rrius (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside about LeMieux

After composing that lengthy post above, I discovered I had an email from the Historical Office:

Dear [Rrius]

You are correct that, typically, the appointment date is used as a start of service date; however, the LeMieux case has been an exception to the rule due to the fact that Senator Martinez' resignation was not effective until 5pm on the 9th. Also, the Senate Disbursing Office is using the 10th as Senator LeMieux's start of service date.

Mary Baumann

U.S. Senate Historical Office

-Rrius (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Page name

I understand that since Paul Kirk is a disambiguation page, the middle initial is necessary, but why the "Jr."? "Paul Kirk" alone is at least as common as any other version of his name. If there's no objection, I'd like to move this page to Paul G. Kirk. -Rrius (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Was Paul G. Kirk's father a notable person? If yes, Jr. is needed, if not, then it's unnecessary. If the article is right, his father was a judge. I don't know if this is enough for notability, so I lean to move the page. Cassandro (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so. For one thing, there is no article for his father. The man was a justice of the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, but that is not in itself notable enough to cause confusion. In other words, it is absurdly unlikely that anyone seeing a link on the project to "Paul Kirk" would wonder which it referred to. In any event, Paul G. Kirk already redirects here. -Rrius (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to move the page. Cassandro (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Twenty year gap

What exactly was Kirk doing during the almost twenty years between his tenure as DNC chair and his appointment as senator? The article mentions that he served on some boards, but that's all. What was he actually doing? john k (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Reason for urgent appointment

'However, given the urgency of some legislation before Congress, most notably health care reform, lawmakers and pundits called for an interim senator to be appointed so that Massachusetts would have full Senate representation until the special election.'

I don't think this is an objective statement. It is too one-sided. Given how the power to appoint interim Senators was taken away from Romney, one would argue "urgency of some legislation" cannot fairly describe the overriding reason for the action taken in this case. I don't suggest the entire controversy be explained in full immediately. Boston right-wing talk radio was certainly opposed to what they perceived as a double standard. ПБХ (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That isn't logical. The fact is, it was Washington politicians who pressed Boston ones to provide for an appointment. They did so because of the urgency of having that vote for heal care, banking regulation, and climate change. That isn't opinion or one sided, it is fact. That sentence does not address the decision by Boston politicians to accede to the request; it merely states why lawmakers and pundits wanted it. If the lawmakers and pundits had merely wanted a change in the law because it was possible, they could have done so after Gov. Patrick was inaugurated or after Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer. -Rrius (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument fails to note that it was Democratic lawmakers, both on the national level and the state level, that were pressing for an interim appointment. It also fails to provide the context that such appointments had been stripped away mere years earlier to deny a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, from appointing a Republican senator if John Kerry had won the presidency. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)

It also fails to mention that the Dems delayed the swearing in so that could allow Kirk instead of the elcted Senator vote. Thus honoring the Liberal Hyena's nefarious abuse of process.166.203.230.13 (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)